Renewable energy - Thoughts?

[merithyn]

Phillip Warburg was on our NPR station this morning. Since I listen to it at work, I usually email my questions in. Today, there were so many questions, that the host didn't get the opportunity to ask any of the emailed questions so he forwarded them on to the guest.

These are my questions and the author's responses:

Were you heartened or disheartened by the answers of Romney and Obama during the Presidential debate? Given your choice, what combination – percentage-wise - of energy options would you recommend to either of them were you their advisor?

What is the role of alternative energy for the urban individual? Would strong individual sales create more of a market for a national response?

Kindly,
Meri


Dear Ms. Merithyn,

Many thanks for listening to the show, and for your interest in the topic.  As for last night's debate, I frankly thought Obama let Romney get away with some categorical assertions about "green energy," including his oft-repeated reference to the Solyndra loan guarantee debacle, without offering evidence of the crucial role that production tax credits and other forms of federal support have played in getting renewable energy off the ground.  Here is a link to an op-ed I recently wrote, examining some of Romney's misguided energy priorities.  http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/08/philip-warburg-mitt-romneys-energy-myopia.html And attached is an op-ed that ran in the Des Moines Register in early August, comparing the two candidates' energy platforms.

In response to your hypothetical question about my sense of a reasonable and attainable energy mix, I think the Department of Energy's stated goal of 20% wind by 2030 is actually quite modest, though we will need to find a way to attach an environmentally appropriate price carbon emissions if wind is to compete effectively with natural gas in the coming years.  (Natural gas-generated power creates about 40 times as much CO2 as wind, taking all stages of building and operating those two types of facilities into account.)  Looking beyond 2030, I think the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's projection that wind and solar combined could meet half our power needs by 2050 is realistic and should be a goal that we vigorously pursue.  Looking at a broader array of renewable resources, NREL projects that we could be getting 80% of our power from renewables by 2050.  That, too, is a target we should take seriously.  Here is a link to the NREL study.  http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/

I would further urge that no new nuclear or coal facilities be built, and that relicensing of older nuclear plants be authorized with extreme caution and be limited in time.  Realistically, natural gas is going to be a major part of our power mix in the coming decades, but I believe that the degree to which we are able to turn to renewables as opposed to gas, or coal, or nuclear, depends on our political will, not technological limitations.  Denmark has set as its goal 100% independence from fossil fuels for ALL uses by 2050; it already is 100% nuclear-free.  If a small country with limited land resources can responsibly pursue that goal, certainly America, with its much vaster open spaces and available renewable resources, can pursue a more modest mid-century goal of 80% reliance on renewables for power generation.

As for urban energy options, household-scale photovoltaics and solar hot water heating are great options for those who have access to exposed roof surfaces, and a vast array of smart-metered, energy-efficient appliances and building retrofit options are available.  State and federal tax incentives and favorable loan options will be essential if we are to introduce these measures on a scale that can make a real difference.

I hope this is helpful and responsive.

Best wishes,
Philip Warburg

I love the idea of renewable energy, but understand that there are serious concerns financially with moving forward. Mr. Warburg offers some suggestions on how best to move in that direction, but not really how to pay for it.

Should free market be allowed to drive this? Or should the government have a stronger hand in it?

[Tamas]

I don't like the term because if we were to harness them heavily enough they wouldn't be renewable. Like, if we had forests of huge ass windmills, that would be sure to modify local weather patterns right?

[merithyn]

I don't like the term because if we were to harness them heavily enough they wouldn't be renewable. Like, if we had forests of huge ass windmills, that would be sure to modify local weather patterns right?

It hasn't seemed to do so in our area, despite the numerous wind fields all around us.

[derspiess]

We need more green jobs.

[Ed Anger]

I priced solar for my home a few years back and it just wasn't worth the expense.

[merithyn]

I priced solar for my home a few years back and it just wasn't worth the expense.

Solyndra has proven that the cost of solar panels have dropped dramatically. Dunno about the rest of the package, but I wonder if it would be worth it now.

[Tamas]

Most of this solar panel and "bio mass" () BS has just been a great way to corrupt away a lot of government money. The ROI rate on them is shitty enough even with subsidies, AFAIK

[Richard Hakluyt]

The cost of the panels has collapsed in the past few years. If you install them yourself and have a good aspect they might be worth it 

[The Minsky Moment]

Probably the best way to achieve the same end is to have no energy subsidies at all but impose a carbon tax.  That requires zero government spending or guarantee exposure, no "picking winners," no risks the companies can grease the system with lobbyists, and it actually raises money for the government.  It forces fossil fuels to bear something closer to their true full costs (internalizing externalities) and thus effectively makes the economics of all alternatives -- wind, solar, and nuclear among others --  more attractive.  And it increases the marginal return to using energy more efficiently.

See: The Pigou Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club

[merithyn]

Probably the best way to achieve the same end is to have no energy subsidies at all but impose a carbon tax.  That requires zero government spending or guarantee exposure, no "picking winners," no risks the companies can grease the system with lobbyists, and it actually raises money for the government.  It forces fossil fuels to bear something closer to their true full costs (internalizing externalities) and thus effectively makes the economics of all alternatives -- wind, solar, and nuclear among others --  more attractive.  And it increases the marginal return to using energy more efficiently.

See: The Pigou Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club

How would this eliminate lobbyists? It seems to me that wherever there's a tax one will find a lobbyist, most especially with carbon useage.

[The Minsky Moment]

How would this eliminate lobbyists? It seems to me that wherever there's a tax one will find a lobbyist, most especially with carbon useage.

it won't eliminate all lobbyists; it will reduce the return on using lobbyists to try to steer special subsidy money to Alternaive Company X as opposed to Alternative Company Y

[Martinus]

I don't like the term because if we were to harness them heavily enough they wouldn't be renewable. Like, if we had forests of huge ass windmills, that would be sure to modify local weather patterns right?

Burning the peat from your home swamp is not "green energy" by the way.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think Mr. Warburg is making a mistake not including natgas in the mix. The economics of it is just too good. Eliminating fossil fuels entirely by 2050...or ever really, is a pipe dream.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't like the term because if we were to harness them heavily enough they wouldn't be renewable. Like, if we had forests of huge ass windmills, that would be sure to modify local weather patterns right?

Burning the peat from your home swamp is not "green energy" by the way.

Beet ethanol is where it's at.

[crazy canuck]

Carbon taxes are problematic for a couple of reasons:

1) Unless you live in a jurisdiction that has hydro power (like the paradise which is British Columbia) you will probably always need to rely on some form of carbon based generation.  The problem is that the power needs to be generated when it is required.  If you have a wind farm that generates power in off peak periods that is not going to help you very much.  As a result a carbon tax will simply make energy more expensive without solving the problem.

2)  Because of the lack of certainty of supply associated with many alternative energy sources they need to be subsidized in some manner in order to make them economically feasible.  I have heard carbon tax advocates argue that the money generated by the tax should pay for such a subsidy which of course raises the concern JR wants to avoid by just putting the revenue into general revenue.  But then who is going to invest in an uncertain power supply?

Nuclear is an answer to the problem of certainty of power generation.  But the resistance to it has little to do with the cost and so a carbon tax wont help that side of the debate.